Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Building a Lightroom PC

paulstamatiou.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 232 posts

Re: Building a Lightroom PC

#101

Post by 07d046 »

kqr wrote: post #92
PStamatiou wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair point :) I should reconsider. The UltraSharp line is factory calibrated but yea that doesn't mean much as it varies between display.

Not only between displays, but also between lighting conditions in the environment where the display is used. In principle, you should recalibrate every time you switch bulbs – even more important any time the monitor moves to a different room!

My understanding is that calibrating the monitor only takes the light emitted from the monitor into account, so the environment doesn't matter for calibration. That said, the way we perceive colour varies depending on environmental lighting, so if you want to be particular you should use D50 or D65 lights in the room, especially if you're printing.

Re: Building a Lightroom PC

#102

Post by AstralStorm »

Washuu wrote: post #39
PStamatiou wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair point :) I should reconsider. The UltraSharp line is factory calibrated but yea that doesn't mean much as it varies between display.

It is factory calibrated for general desktop usage, but not necessarily for photograph reproduction. Buy the cheapest Datacolor Spyder5(S5X100). The hardware is same between all the versions and only the software differs. Then get the open source DisplayCAL( https://displaycal.net/ ) that works with Datacolor sensors and other manufacturers. I calibrate my display once or twice a year. I also use it to calibrate my g…

Or you can do it manually the old way with a colour reference sheet. More laborious and requires good lighting (preferably daylight).

Re: Building a Lightroom PC

#103

Post by tzs »

07d046 wrote: post #19

I can't imagine spending $6000 on a computer for editing photos and then saying "It also means I don't plan to buy and meticulously use a color calibration device". My computer might not be half as fast, but at least I know my blues are the shade of blue I think they are.

> My computer might not be half as fast, but at least I know my blues are the shade of blue I think they are.

I've wondered if one could do color calibration using any ordinary digital camera and some clever software, but don't know enough about how color calibration actually works on computer to figure out if it would actually work.

The idea is that you would have some reference photos of assorted physical objects of known colors. The physical objects are chosen to be items that are commonly found around the house or office, or are cheaply and easily obtained.

You pick such a physical object, place it next to your monitor, and tell the software which object you are using.

The software then displays several images of that item on the monitor. One is the reference photo, and the others are tweaked versions of that reference photo that tweak the colors.

You then take a photo with your camera, showing the images on the monitor and the object itself. You upload that to the software.

The software then compares the object in the photo to the images on the monitor, and figures out which best matches. From this, it should be able to deduce some information about how accurately the monitor is displaying color, and what adjustments could be made to improve it.

Note that this does not depend on the camera being accurately calibrated. It just depends on the camera being consistent, and having enough color resolution to see the tweaks that the software applies to the images on the monitor.

Note also that this should work for more than just calibrating monitors. It should also be able to figure out a color profile for your camera along the way. Then it should be able to print some test images, have you take photos of them, and from those and the camera color profile figure out a color profile for your printer.

Re: Building a Lightroom PC

#104

Post by nicolaslem »

patrickg_zill wrote: post #80

Paul (and anyone else who uses Sony cameras) I would like to suggest that you test out Capture One for processing your RAW files. I have found it does a better job of handling the Sony files than just about anything else. Also is GPU accelerated. My experience is based on the Sony RX10 files, and a friend of mine who uses it for handling his A7Rii files. A free version is available for use with Sony RAWs; or you can…

Lightroom is plain bad with Fujifilm X-Trans raw files so I tried to find an alternative but I couldn't. The Lightroom workflow really is what makes the difference. I feel at home with Lightroom.

So I keep exporting jpegs that look like garbage until Adobe decides to have decent support for the Fuji X line.

Re: Building a Lightroom PC

#105

Post by Bromskloss »

th0ma5 wrote: post #44
Bromskloss wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you given up on making some money?

I guess no? But I did for sure notice a change in my ambition / perspective a while ago after I crossed the theoretical threshold mentioned quite a bit a few years ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1381927 I guess I value time more now? Honestly I may have to sit on your question a while and maybe it was one that was lingering when I posted my comment.

Oh, 60 000 USD/year? My first reaction is that this is tons of money, and that you should easily be able to afford fancy cameras, a high-powered computer, and a well-kept place to live, as we see in the link. Congratulations! Then again, maybe the cost of living where you are is higher than what I'm used to, so I guess I can't draw any certain conclusions.

Re: Building a Lightroom PC

#106

Post by 07d046 »

tzs wrote: post #103
07d046 wrote: post #19

I can't imagine spending $6000 on a computer for editing photos and then saying "It also means I don't plan to buy and meticulously use a color calibration device". My computer might not be half as fast, but at least I know my blues are the shade of blue I think they are.

> My computer might not be half as fast, but at least I know my blues are the shade of blue I think they are. I've wondered if one could do color calibration using any ordinary digital camera and some clever software, but don't know enough about how color calibration actually works on computer to figure out if it would actually work. The idea is that you would have some reference photos of assorted physical objects o…

Interesting idea, but I think there's a variable you're missing, which is the light by which the physical object is illuminated by. The colour temperature and spectral power distribution of the light makes a difference. If you used a custom white balance in your camera you should be able to get the colour temperature close to right (depending on how neutral the camera is), but to calibrate colours you'll need a high quality light source (real daylight is quite good, but varies a lot). At this point, a cheap calibrator is probably easier and far more accurate.

Re: Building a Lightroom PC

#107

Post by altano »

alkonaut wrote: post #100

Word of caution 4K@27" is still pretty terrible in Windows. It's fine if you stay in specific apps for 99% of the time (such as a cad workstation or a Lightroom machine as in this case) but 27 requires scaling and many apps simply don't scale well. The "simple" solution is to run 4K at 32" or larger where you can run att 100% scaling. Unfortunately, if you want a screen with decent color you are adding serious money…

Why is this said in every discussion of high-dpi displays? I've been using high-dpi displays on Windows for longer than Retina was a thing and it's totally fine with only the extremely rare app/dialog not supporting it. My main display right now is 4k@27" with scaling on. Most apps are built properly and Windows now even supports fringe features like multi-monitor setups with different scaling ratios (a feature I was eagerly awaiting).

It's not perfect and I'll occasionally come across some old utility that was built 10 years ago and renders poorly, but never a commonly used or modern one. The level of inconvenience doesn't even register.

What do you want to use that doesn't work? Please be specific!

Re: Building a Lightroom PC

#109

Post by arca_vorago »

eksemplar wrote: post #40
striking wrote: post #2

N.B.: the "switch to Windows" is from macOS and not from Linux, just in case anyone was wondering. I think it's very interesting that the availability of Linux on Windows helped the author choose Windows.

The switch stories are always either “from Mac-OS” or “to Linux”, the former being a “oh no you didn’t” and the latter being “I’m with cool birds now” narrative. It’s basically non-stories because your OS matters as little as what programming language you use. Pick the one that works for you, but don’t become a fucking missionary or tie your personality to your brand of choice.

>It’s basically non-stories because your OS matters as little as what programming language you use.

>Pick the one that works for you, but don’t become a fucking missionary or tie your personality to your brand of choice.

I do what I want and you can't tell me what to do!

I think RMS was and is right and computing should not be viewed through a purely pragmatic lense, and I'm going to keep mentioning the importance of foss and copyleft to the future of computing and how it enables freedom for the user until I see fit to stop.

I think OS choice greatly matters. I say this as a senior sysadmin who has had to support all 3 major OS's for over a decade. Windows 10 was the final straw for me and I went completely gnu/linux and haven't looked back since except to feel sorry for all the stockholm syndrome I see in those chained to those ecosystems.

Re: Building a Lightroom PC

#110

Post by REALiSTiC »

ternaryoperator wrote: post #95

This is a brilliant post. The ability to navigate around the article easily and then parachute into a section and revel in detail is beautifully executed. Using links to add asides is another excellent touch. When scowls complain that the Web is crap, this is where you take them to see what the Web could in fact be.

Can anyone shed some light on how some blog posts of his are done (coded, styled, built)? (For example, https://paulstamatiou.com/photos/new-zealand/ and https://paulstamatiou.com/photos/new-zealand/auckland/. They're simply marvelous!)
Post reply on HN